Government's Motion to Adjourn Preliminary Hearing and for Determination of Excludable Delay Under the Speedy Trial Act and Supporting Brief — United States v. Carter (Dkt. 20, E.D. Mich. No. 2:22-mj-30125)

Summary

The Government's Motion to Adjourn Preliminary Hearing and for Determination of Excludable Delay under the Speedy Trial Act, with an attached order, filed 10/05/22 as ECF No. 20 in United States of America v. Java Dominique Carter, No. 22-mj-30125 in the Eastern District of Michigan. The government says Carter was arrested on the criminal complaint on March 16, 2022 and released on a $10,000 unsecured bond, and that the parties are in preindictment plea negotiations. It asks to move the preliminary hearing to December 5, 2022 and to exclude the delay under the Speedy Trial Act; defense counsel Vincent Haisha does not oppose, and the order grants the motion.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 
SOUTHERN DIVISION 
 
United States of America, 
 
 
 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
 
No. 22-mj-30125 
-vs- 
 
Java Dominique Carter, 
 
 
 
 
Defendant. 
                                                               / 
 
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO ADJOURN PRELIMINARY HEARING 
AND FOR DETERMINATION OF EXCLUDABLE DELAY UNDER 
THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT AND SUPPORTING BRIEF 
 
 
The United States of America, by and through its undersigned attorneys, 
move for an adjournment of the preliminary hearing and an ends-of-justice 
continuance under the Speedy Trial Act.  In support, the government states as 
follows: 
 
1. 
Defendant was arrested on the criminal complaint in this case on 
March 16, 2022 , and he made his initial appearance on the criminal complaint on March 
16, 2022.  Defendant was released on a $10,000 unsecured bond.  The preliminary hearing 
is currently scheduled to take place on October 4, 2022 
2. 
The government and defendant are engaged in preindictment plea 
negotiations that may result in a plea agreement which will eliminate the need for 
Case 2:22-mj-30125-DUTY   ECF No. 20, PageID.70   Filed 10/05/22   Page 1 of 6

- 2 - 
 
this Court to conduct a preliminary hearing.  A preindictment plea agreement will 
also provide that defendant waive his right to be prosecuted by indictment and thus 
eliminate the need for the government to seek an indictment and consume grand 
jury resources.  In addition, a preindictment plea agreement will also eliminate the 
need for a trial. 
3. 
A part of the plea negotiations involves defense counsel’s assessment of the 
government’s case against defendant.  This assessment requires that defense 
counsel have the reasonable time necessary to adequately review the discovery 
provided and/or about to be provided by the government to him and then confer 
with defendant.   
4. 
In light of the above, the government submits that there is good cause to 
adjourn the preliminary hearing.  Moreover, defendant has consented to this 
adjournment, and the adjournment sought is fairly limited.  See Fed. R. Crim. P. 
5.1(d) (“With the defendant’s consent and upon a showing of good cause – taking 
into account the public interest in the prompt disposition of criminal cases – a 
magistrate judge may extend the time limits in Rule 5.1(c) one or more times.”). 
5. 
In addition, in light of the above, the government submits that the ends of 
justice served by a continuance of the 30-day arrest-to-indictment period under the 
Speedy Trial Act will outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in 
Case 2:22-mj-30125-DUTY   ECF No. 20, PageID.71   Filed 10/05/22   Page 2 of 6

- 3 - 
 
a speedy indictment.  See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7) (“The following periods of delay 
shall be excluded in computing the time within which an information or an 
indictment must be filed: . . . (7) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance 
granted by any judge on his own motion or at the request of the defendant or his 
counsel, or at the request of the attorney for the Government, if the judge granted 
such continuance on the basis of his findings that the ends of justice served by 
taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a 
speedy [indictment].”). Such a continuance would allow the parties to continue 
their preindictment plea negotiations without strict time constraints and pursue an 
expeditious and fair resolution of the government’s prosecution of defendant.  It 
would also likely result in the conservation of judicial and prosecutorial resources 
by eliminating the need for a preliminary hearing and in the conservation of grand 
jury and prosecutorial resources by eliminating the need for defendant to be 
prosecuted by way of a grand jury indictment.  And it would also likely result in 
the conservation of judicial and prosecutorial resources by eliminating the need for 
a trial. 
6. 
Accordingly, the government requests that this Court find there is good 
cause to adjourn the preliminary hearing in this case and order that the preliminary 
hearing be adjourned until December 5, 2022  The government also requests that 
Case 2:22-mj-30125-DUTY   ECF No. 20, PageID.72   Filed 10/05/22   Page 3 of 6

- 4 - 
 
this Court find, based on the information and explanation set forth above, that the 
ends of justice served by a continuance of the 30-day Speedy Trial Act arrest-to-
indictment period will outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in 
a speedy indictment.  The government requests that this ends-of-justice 
continuance begin on the date of this motion and continue through December 5, 
2022 and that that period be deemed excludable delay pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 
3161(h)(7). 
7. 
Defense counsel, Vincent Haisha, has reviewed this motion and does not 
oppose it. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
Dawn N. Ison 
 
United States Attorney 
 
 
s/Craig Weier 
Craig Weier  P33261 
 
Assistant United States Attorney 
 
211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001 
Detroit, MI  48226 
craig.weier@usdoj.gov 
(313) 226-9678 
Dated:  October 4, 2022 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 
Case 2:22-mj-30125-DUTY   ECF No. 20, PageID.73   Filed 10/05/22   Page 4 of 6

- 5 - 
 
SOUTHERN DIVISION 
 
United States of America, 
 
 
 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
 
No. 22-mj-30125 
-vs- 
 
Java Dominique Carter, 
 
 
 
 
Defendant. 
                                                               / 
 
ORDER 
 
This matter coming before the Court on the Government’s Motion to 
Adjourn Preliminary Hearing and for Determination of Excludable Delay under the 
Speedy Trial Act, and defense counsel having indicated that he does not oppose the 
motion, for the reasons stated in the government’s motion, the motion is granted. 
 
The Court finds, based on the information and explanation set forth in the 
government’s motion, that there is good cause to adjourn the preliminary hearing 
in this case and orders that it be adjourned to December 5, 2022.  See Fed.R. Crim. 
P. 5.1(d). 
 
In addition, for the reasons stated in the government’s motion, the Court 
finds, based on the information and explanation set forth in the government’s 
motion, that the ends of justice served by a continuance of the 30-day Speedy Trial 
Case 2:22-mj-30125-DUTY   ECF No. 20, PageID.74   Filed 10/05/22   Page 5 of 6

- 6 - 
 
Act arrest-to-indictment period will outweigh the best interest of the public and the 
defendant in a speedy indictment.  See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7).  Accordingly, the 
Court grants a continuance until December 5, 2022, and orders that the period from 
October 4, 2022 to December 5, 2022 be deemed excludable delay pursuant to 18 
U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
s/JONATHAN J.C. GREY   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Jonathan J.C. Grey 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
United States Magistrate Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dated: October 5, 2022  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 2:22-mj-30125-DUTY   ECF No. 20, PageID.75   Filed 10/05/22   Page 6 of 6

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mied.360415.20.0.pdf

Size

182,732 bytes

SHA-256

6dc2188e259a8186bee7690bb2c3c84fb8f59c8d91eec693ef437f51602d1e19

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mied.360415.20.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)